I just want to add that while most sports nutrition companies put the bulk of their disposable budget into marketing, my company has given grants to

If you don't believe providing unsolicited advice of your good deeds is marketing; or, worse, you know it, but are cynical enough to pretend otherwise; then don't worry about convincing me about anything else. You've said quite enough.

In 31 trained males subject to a standardized weight lifting program and diet (500kcal excess with 2g/kg protein) given either 1g arachidonic acid daily or placebo, supplementation over 50 days appeared to increase peak power (7.1%) and average power (3.6%) on a Wingate test but failed to positively influence muscle mass or weight lifting measures of power (bench press and leg press)

I just want to add that while most sports nutrition companies put the bulk of their disposable budget into marketing, my company has given grants to Benedictine University, Baylor University, and now the University of Tampa (working in conjunction with Auburn University) specifically to study this ingredient. I'd hardly say that I'm putting the onus on the public to just believe me; "try it, it works". I've put my money where my mouth is to prove it works. I came here expecting an intelligent conversation on this research.

BTW; since it has come up, X-Factor sells for about $40 most sites, not $90.

One inconclusive study and one unpublished study isn't convincing. That's all I'm saying. I am not criticizing your research or integrity. Please don't interpret it that way. Keep researching. Sincerely. I really hope this stuff works. I'd be the first in line to buy it. But the evidence isn't there yet.

In 31 trained males subject to a standardized weight lifting program and diet (500kcal excess with 2g/kg protein) given either 1g arachidonic acid daily or placebo, supplementation over 50 days appeared to increase peak power (7.1%) and average power (3.6%) on a Wingate test but failed to positively influence muscle mass or weight lifting measures of power (bench press and leg press)

No, not at all. It was an great study. Perhaps a bit underpowered, so seeing statistical significance may have been more difficult. If you read the paper you will see that all of the other performance variables were trending but not significant, such as the bench press (which was improved 25 lbs in ARA group). "Statistical analysis revealed a low to moderate effect-size increase in bench press strength in the AA group". This means there appears to have been an effect, but we are only "very likely" (80-95% confident) associating it with the supplement. The threshold for statistical significance is high, which is why we place such weight in these findings when we do see it.

Again, Tampa is really a continuation of the Baylor work; a compliment, not a contradiction. My advice is to take time and read the full paper, and a little bit about statistical significance, especially in relation to small group studies like these.

This is the Tampa study. It has been published in abstract form by the National Strength and Conditioning Association. Yes, full paper is pending, but this is considered published data, as there was a peer review process.

I just want to add that while most sports nutrition companies put the bulk of their disposable budget into marketing, my company has given grants to Benedictine University, Baylor University, and now the University of Tampa (working in conjunction with Auburn University) specifically to study this ingredient. I'd hardly say that I'm putting the onus on the public to just believe me; "try it, it works". I've put my money where my mouth is to prove it works. I came here expecting an intelligent conversation on this research.
BTW; since it has come up, X-Factor sells for about $40 most sites, not $90.

The major findings from this study were that AA supplementation significantly increased anaerobic peak power by 8.5% at day 50 (P < 0.05) and attenuated the increases in circulating IL-6 levels that were seen in the PLA group (AA: 138.0 ± 83.1 pg·ml-1, PLA: 172.6 ± 90.5 pg·ml-1, P < 0.05) on day 25 of the study. Statistical trends were also found for PGE2 increases (98.5 ± 217 vs. PLA: -73.8 ± 273 pg·ml-1, P = 0.06) in the AA group. These findings suggest that AA supplementation may increase prostaglandin levels in the blood and provide a potential ergogenic value for athletes engaged in high-intensity exercise. Additionally, that subjects engaged in intense training may be able to tolerate training with less inflammation as indicated by lower IL-6 levels. However, no significant differences were seen between groups in changes in body composition, circulating anabolic hormones, and/or intramuscular markers of muscle hypertrophy. These findings do not support claims that AA supplementation during resistance training stimulates muscle hypertrophy leading to greater gains in strength and/or muscle mass.

Molecular Nutrition has been already making profits from selling arachidonic acid supplement prior to these studies. Hence if Mr. William's claim is true then he is using a portion of profits on unproven supplements to fund the research

University of Tampa's unpublished research isn't even peer reviewed (very crucial step)

Also if Mr. William's claim of funding of University of Tampa's unpublished research study is true then the rule of thumbs says any research study funded by supplement companies must be taken with a grain of salt

I would like to add a few additional points:
[*]Also if Mr. William's claim of funding of University of Tampa's unpublished research study is true then the rule of thumbs says any research study funded by supplement companies must be taken with a grain of salt[/list]

Again, the data has been peer reviewed, but feel free to wait for the final paper; I'm not trying to force you to accept the results if you don't want to.

BTW, company funded research is how most studies get done in sports nutrition. It is perfectly ethical for a University to accept and run such project, and to do so without bias. The money is given as a grant, and the findings are published regardless of the outcome. Most academics would be highly offended at this statement.

Greetings Lyle. Ha, I just found this old thread and figured I'd update everyone. Hopefully you will find this new data on arachidonic acid interesting. There have been 4 exercise studies on ARA published now, and all 4 have found significant findings with regard to either body composition changes, performance (strength/power) improvements, or markers of anabolism.

1) Tampa study has since been peer-reviewed and published in PLOS ONE. Here is a link to the full text. Again, significant increase in LBM, strength, and power with 8 weeks of arachidonic acid (X-FACTOR) supplementation.

2) This study was just published in January 2018. It found arachidonic acid supplementation to increase myogenin and MyoD. Further, after extensive review of circulating and muscle immune and inflammatory markers, it found no risk of increased inflammation, and in fact a modest reduction in some markers.

"In muscle, ARA supplementation increased mRNA expression of the myogenic regulatory factors; MyoD and myogenin, but had no effect on a range of immune cell markers or inflammatory cytokines. These data show that dietary ARA supplementation can rapidly and safely modulate plasma and muscle fatty acid profile and promote myogenic gene expression in resistance trained men, without a risk of increasing basal systemic or intramuscular inflammation."

3) This paper was published in February 2018. It found arachidonic acid supplementation to increase ribosome biogenesis (protein translational capacity) and satellite cell counts.

"“Satellite cells play an important role in repair of damaged muscle, tissue remodeling and may be regulate extreme muscle hypertrophy. In the present study, the number of cells in muscle staining positive for the satellite cell marker NCAM was increased hours after exercise in both groups. However, there was a tendency for a greater percentage increase in NCAM+ cells in the ARA group (84%) compared with placebo (16%). NCAM mRNA expression also tended to increase to a greater extent in the ARA group than placebo at 2 hours after exercise. Additionally, mRNA expression of the satellite cell marker PAX7 was greater in the ARA group compared with placebo at 48 hours after exercise. “